Georgia House rejects bill to license ketamine clinics that would require physician majority ownership

The Georgia House of Representatives rejected House Bill 717 on the floor after a lengthy debate over safety, access and who may own outpatient ketamine clinics. The bill, brought by Representative Cooper, would have required physicians to hold a majority (51%) ownership stake in ketamine clinics and given the Georgia Composite Medical Board authority to set safety and reporting rules.

Representative Cooper, who presented the bill, said the intent was to “license ketamine clinics and establish parameters that promote safe and effective prescribing, administration, and post treatment monitoring of psychedelic assisted treatment and therapy.” She told colleagues the measure was aimed at closing what she called an ‘‘open west’’ market for IV ketamine infusions and ensuring clinics have equipment, protocols and oversight.

Opponents criticized the ownership restriction as a limit on access and an enforcement of professional title over demonstrated competence. Representative McDonough, speaking in opposition, said the bill “hard codes physicians majority ownership in the statute” and argued regulators should focus on training, standards and enforcement rather than ownership rules. Representative Park Cannon also opposed the measure, saying it “pushes ownership by physicians and denies well qualified nurse anesthetists from becoming business owners.”

Physicians and other proponents framed the measure as a patient- and public-safety step. Representative Dr. Al, who described clinical experience with ketamine in hospital settings, called it “a patient safety bill and a public safety bill,” and said the state lacks reliable information on how many clinics operate, what doses are given, or how patients are screened and monitored.

The House adopted the committee’s substitute and then took a roll-call vote. The result on House Bill 717 was 73 yays and 88 nays; the clerk announced the bill failed to receive the constitutional majority required. After the vote, the House recorded a notice of intent to reconsider under House Rule 143. The motion to reconsider was filed and the Speaker stated House Bill 717 will be taken up before morning orders on the next legislative day.

The debate on HB 717 included multiple exchanges in which members pressed sponsors on technical details — including whether the bill would regulate IV infusions only versus other formulations such as lozenges — and on the scope of grandfathering current clinics. Sponsors said existing clinics would be allowed to continue (a grandfathering provision) while the board would issue rules aimed at improving safety and monitoring. Opponents said the ownership requirement could reduce future clinic openings and restrict who may provide or own clinics even if those providers meet safety standards.

Next steps: House leadership filed the formal notice to reconsider the vote; HB 717 is scheduled to return for further consideration at the start of the next legislative day.